Shorty Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 I hate the phrase 'canon'. The only 'canon' that is important to me is canonity to oneself, in other words, staying true to what you have used so far in your own adaptation. No plotholes. Canon to some sort of previously accepted norm is senseless. Especially in the likes of the DC comics universe, which screws up its continuity every few years and introduces some sort of 'crisis' to fix things. How do you decide what's canon when a comic book story is eternally retold? It is Nolan's universe to snip and select how he likes, IMO.
chairdriver Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Did anyone else keep thinking that the hispanic cop was supposed to be Renee Montoya? I kept getting confused, and didn't understand who Rameriez was on the first viewing. I mean, she has a pretty major part in 52, and I thought they were setting her character up for the next film.
ReZourceman Posted August 2, 2008 Author Posted August 2, 2008 I think he would, he's a very silly character... Theres three Robins and all are different and interesting. Saying hes silly is ridiculous. Thats as if you are envisioning some guy with green tights, and a yellow and red cape (or whatever) which of course is a silly costume, but he doesnt have to be like that. Precisely, you preffer a straight tale, but a truly genious screenplay needs a splash of random and insane. No.
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Theres three Robins and all are different and interesting. Saying hes silly is ridiculous. Thats as if you are envisioning some guy with green tights, and a yellow and red cape (or whatever) which of course is a silly costume, but he doesnt have to be like that. I know he doesn't, but there's something about Robin that ruins everything, which is the Bat no longer being a lone vigilante, which, in all honesty, is what makes him such an appealing force... No. Oh yes, fine sir, bear in mind the greatest stories ever commited to celluloid, for almost none of them are linear and straight, Citizen Kane wouldn't have been Citizen Kane if it followed a common storyline, randomness (or better put, chaos) is what makes the equation truly great. Seriously, be it Potemkin or Wings of desire, none of the truly brilliant stories would be what they are if they followed such a straight road as Batman Begins. But I can see this is making little impact on your mind, as you're an opinion-driven creature, ReZ. (No offense, I quite like thee.) : peace:
ReZourceman Posted August 2, 2008 Author Posted August 2, 2008 Oh yes, fine sir, bear in mind the greatest stories ever commited to celluloid, for almost none of them are linear and straight, Citizen Kane wouldn't have beenature, ReZ. (No offense, I quite like thee) : peace: Citizen Kane if it followed a common storyline, randomness (or better put, chaos) is what makes the equation truly great. Seriously, be it Potemkin or Wings of desire, none of the truly brilliant stories would be what they are if they followed such a straight road as Batman Begins. But I can see this is making little impact on your mind, as you're an opinion-driven creature, ReZ. (No offense, I quite like thee.) : peace: Lol, no probs. I dont look at films as deeply as you. I base my scores and feelings on them purely on how much I enjoy them. The reason I prefer Begins is solely the reasons I stated previously (didn't feel like Gotham for the most part) and the story was IMHO (OPINION MAN!) not as good. Its not because TDK "threw in insanity" or whatever. Again, I re-iterate, the film gets a 9.4 from me, thats immenseity.
dazzybee Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Begins plot was so weak, the script was weak. It had great ideas of him being a ninja and basing it in reality, but it shouldn't have taken an hour to do that - in that hour NOTHING happens - and I love character driven stories, but it didn't work for me. It was so long because it was setting up Al Ghuls character underneath, but we didnt know it was doing this becase this was the big twist. And a disappointing twist. The scarecrow was vastly underused and there was NO THREAT WHATSOEVER on Batman and to be honest, the threat on Gotham was so underplayed; there was a complete lack of danger or drammatic action in the film. Dark Knight, which I don't think is amazing, has much better plotting, drammatic action running throughout and a much better arc for all characters in the film - Batman, Joker, Dent, Rachel and Gordon ALL had some serious journeys in the film; underneath all the physical action, there was a lot happening emotionally and drammatically. For me, Begins had NONE of that.
ReZourceman Posted August 2, 2008 Author Posted August 2, 2008 Begins plot was so weak, the script was weak. It had great ideas of him being a ninja and basing it in reality, but it shouldn't have taken an hour to do that - in that hour NOTHING happens - and I love character driven stories, but it didn't work for me. It was so long because it was setting up Al Ghuls character underneath, but we didnt know it was doing this becase this was the big twist. And a disappointing twist. The scarecrow was vastly underused and there was NO THEAT WHATSOEVER on Batman or to be honest, the threat on Gotham was so underplayed there was a complete lack of danger or drammatic action in the film. From this description, Im not sure you've actually seen it. Are you sure it was Batman Begins?
dazzybee Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 From this description, Im not sure you've actually seen it. Are you sure it was Batman Begins? Yeah, it's the one Eddie Murphy can talk to animals isn't it?
ReZourceman Posted August 2, 2008 Author Posted August 2, 2008 Yeah, it's the one Eddie Murphy can talk to animals isn't it? :bowdown:
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 The way we're talking, it almost makes one think that Begins is bad... when it's fantastic. It's only that TDK is better (IMO) lol. :P
Dan_Dare Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Yeah. To me they're both pretty much 10s anyway. Fucking ace films in every sense
KKOB Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Sounds weird but i think Wall.e is a better film than The Dark Knight. Both are amazing, and very different, but Wall.e just is perfection!
chairdriver Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Sounds weird but i think Wall.e is a better film than The Dark Knight. Both are amazing, and very different, but Wall.e just is perfection! Well, to be fair, Wall.E is a Disney-Pixar film.
Paj! Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 The Dark Knight has a better story, simply because it's so fucking intelligent, how it all connects. However, enjoyment is much different to how good the plotting/story actually is. I dont look at films as deeply as you. I base my scores and feelings on them purely on how much I enjoy them. . ORLY? "Transformers>Atonement" j/k didn't feel like Gotham for the most part Well...why? It was the exact same Gotham shown in the first one. The first one is just mostly set in the annoying-on-the-eye-to-watch Narrows. We see the developed inner city in the first one, a lot. That happens to be where this one is mostly set. It ties into the fact that he's no longer a rookie. Batman:Year One shows him using the poor parts of Gotham as "training", and to gain experience, and this was somewhat true in Batman Begins. He gets his ass handed to him by Scarecrow in the Narrows, first time. The Dark Knight shows his progression as a crime fighter. The Narrows are being rebuilt, and while he'll still be fighting crime there, the issue the film deal with is this much larger threat, sensibly targeting Gotham as a whole. ------
chairdriver Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 There aren't the big trams in the second film that there are in the first.
Paj! Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 There aren't the big trams in the second film that there are in the first. Well, we never see them, but then there aren't many long panning shots. Of course, the actual ansser is that they were pretty much destroyed in the first one remember? Or at least the section leading to Wayne Towers.
Shorty Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 I spotted those trains at one point during TDK, I'm sure I did.
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Yeah. To me they're both pretty much 10s anyway. Fucking ace films in every sense I'd give BB an 8. And TDK got a 9.9 out of me.
dazzybee Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Sounds weird but i think Wall.e is a better film than The Dark Knight. Both are amazing, and very different, but Wall.e just is perfection! Completely agree, it's not even close in my opinion Batman Begins - *** Dark Knight - (a reluctant) **** Wall-E - ***** Burtons Batman is better than either BB or DK
ReZourceman Posted August 2, 2008 Author Posted August 2, 2008 Burtons Batman is better than either BB or DK Thus invalidating your opinion.
dazzybee Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Thus invalidating your opinion. Dammit!! Janet! I loved Batman, and although the Joker isn't really the joker, he's still a fantastic character, still love his death and the laughing bag! If only Burton did Superman.........
Cube Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 If only Burton did Superman......... I doubt anyone could ever make a good Superman anything.
Paj! Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 I doubt anyone could ever make a good Superman anything. True, he's shit. Although the the first film is actually quite enjoyable. ---- Burton's Batman films are great fun, but Batman can't even fight properly in it. He ducks, spin-kicks a few times and flips people over. They're a load of fun, and have a great style, and he definitely made Penguin a credible villain compared to his classic corny character. However, they aren't "Batman" enough. He's gone on record to say he'd never actually read Batman before making the films.
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 I doubt anyone could ever make a good Superman anything. :bowdown: :bowdown: I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.
Jim Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Finally got around to seeing this, there's one thing thats bothering me about it that has probably been answered in one of the 11 pages, but I'm feeling lazy. Can anyone give me a quick answer? Why did batman tell gordon he was going to save rachel, and then go for harvey? So confused. I think I understand why, but that just sucks. Also, no real hint at a sequel at the end of the film. I'm guessing there will be one right? :S
Recommended Posts